>>7050912>ok. i see what you are saying, but you are wrong. No, you are wrong because you have no arguement and have not given any reason for your logic.
>you are basing the term slav on who they intermixed with. Thats exactly what you did, idiot! You separated South Slavs from the rest and then tried to combine East and West into one
>Each race has some degree of admixture but the whole point of even trying to define a race, is not by what admixtures it has but by the pure haplogroup. Autosomal DNA is more important than haplomemes.
>that is why the southern slavs are not even really slavs;. their dominant racial group is the I ydna haplogroup. By that logic, West Slavs are not Slacs because of R1b and East Slavs because of N1c.
>they are neolithic europeans, not indo europeans. All Europeans are Indo-Europeans.
>there is a large amount of indo europeans admixture which is why they are mistakenly called slavs, but the dominant group is not slavic it is the neolithic I ydna haplogroup. Slavs are not a racial group, they are cultural and linguistic. There is no “Slavic race” and never was.
>similarly, you are trying tio divide "east" and "west" slavs as basically poles and czechs bs russians and ukranians. this is pointless. Except it’s not you fucking idiots, it’s exactly what is is! Poles, Czechs and Slovaks are West Slavs. Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are East Slavs. Is it that hard for you to comprehend?
>They certainly do have different admixtures due to geography and miscegenation with different groups. Proving his point further.
